Luck Running Out

[tenbears1971]

Interesting article. Not exactly flattering to the front office or coaching staff.

http://grantland.com/features/andrew-luck-2014-nfl-season-indianapolis-colts-close-games/

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

I like the dig at Pagano and Grigs. Gold Jerry!

[Gavin]

Seems like a waste of an article to be honest.  Barnwell is stating the obvious that everyone should or does know, The team as a whole is a work in progress.....I don't agree the staff actively tries to appear to put obstacles in Andrews way obviously, though they also don't try to make Andrews job appear any easier, They certainly have made it harder on him on more than a few instances, Bad route concepts, Some bum O Linemen along the way, Refusing to use Lucks mobility as a stable of the offense or pretty much at all for that matter(The refusal by Pep to call some roll out passes for Luck really burns me up), Blatantly obvious playcalls, Its pretty obvious that a screen pass is going to go to a wr within the first few play calls of our opening possession and that obviousness is partially what cost us a pick 6 vs the Patriots on the opening drive in the playoffs last year), I have always believed in take what the defense gives ya followed by take what you want off of that

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

Seems like a waste of an article to be honest. Barnwell is stating the obvious that everyone should or does know, The team as a whole is a work in progress.....I don't agree the staff actively tries to appear to put obstacles in Andrews way obviously, though they also don't try to make Andrews job appear any easier, They certainly have made it harder on him on more than a few instances, Bad route concepts, Some bum O Linemen along the way, Refusing to use Lucks mobility as a stable of the offense or pretty much at all for that matter(The refusal by Pep to call some roll out passes for Luck really burns me up), Blatantly obvious playcalls, Its pretty obvious that a screen pass is going to go to a wr within the first few play calls of our opening possession and that obviousness is partially what cost us a pick 6 vs the Patriots on the opening drive in the playoffs last year), I have always believed in take what the defense gives ya followed by take what you want off of that

Trading for a horrible rb, then attempting to pound the ball until the team is down by multiple tds is kinda putting an obstacle in front of Luck and the team.

Don't get me started on starting DHB over TY. The FBI should be checking their bank accounts. Maybe their gamblers or something

[Gavin]

Trading for a horrible rb, then attempting to pound the ball until the team is down by multiple tds is kinda putting an obstacle in front of Luck and the team.

Right, But I doubt Pep and Pagano are trying to put obstacles in front of Luck......and That would basically insinuate they both want to be out of a job at some point by the way because Irsay wont put up with that for long

[tenbears1971]

I think this reflects how good Luck really is. We've skipped a few years in the rebuilding process and in turn now rely on under the radar free agents rather than our position in the Draft. A double edged sword of sorts.

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

Right, But I doubt Pep and Pagano are trying to put obstacles in front of Luck...That would basically insinuate they both want to be out of a job at some point by the way because Irsay wont put up with that for long

Pretty sure the Grantland guy was joking. Pagano and Grigs just can't seem to help themselves. Even with the oline, Everytime Satele went out, the line played better. So why keep putting him back in the lineup? A lot of questions that haven't been answered imo

[Smonroe]

I'm a math guy, I understand what he's trying to say. What he fails to address is that each game has different circumstances, therefore the trend to the norm cannot necessarily be expected.

So the amount of close games won in the future has nothing to do with the number of close games won in the past. Plus he uses subjective assessments like fact.

If you flip a coin, the chances of it coming up heads is 50-50. If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 90% of the time, the next time you flip the coin the chances are still 50-50. And every time after that.

[ColtsBTM12]

Trading for a horrible rb, then attempting to pound the ball until the team is down by multiple tds is kinda putting an obstacle in front of Luck and the team.

Don't get me started on starting DHB over TY. The FBI should be checking their bank accounts. Maybe their gamblers or something

Trent Richardson isn't horrible, he just had a hard time adjusting to a new team, city, system, and terminology in the middle of an NFL season. He'll have a much better year this year, you shouldn't give up on him so fast.

[OffensivelyPC]

I'm a math guy, I understand what he's trying to say. What he fails to address is that each game has different circumstances, therefore the trend to the norm cannot necessarily be expected.

So the amount of close games won in the future has nothing to do with the number of close games won in the past. Plus he uses subjective assessments like fact.

If you flip a coin, the chances of it coming up heads is 50-50. If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 90% of the time, the next time you flip the coin the chances are still 50-50. And every time after that.

Well and the other thing that it never really addressed was that this "Wyatt Earp" concept is relative to each player.  For instance, the artcile he cited to describe the concept used Ray Rice's regular season fumbles and compared it to his post season fumbles.  It used the length of a players career as a barometer to describe the small sample size.  Right now, Luck's entire sample size is 14-2.  He makes room for the fact that it may change in the future, of course, but as of now, the "norm" is that Luck's entire sample size is a ridiculous 80 something percent of winning in close games.  That doesn't suggest in the least it would change except as it pertains to him.  Now of course, we all know that such streaks which, compared to other players throughout the history of the NFL suggest that winning that many close games with such consistency is unlikely.  Until Luck shows signs of equalizing his win percentage in close games as compared to the rest of NFL QBs, the Wyatt Earp concept doesn't apply.

[dgambill]

Very interesting article with a lot of facts. I liked that. Once it got to Luck's specifics with the Colts there was some reaching etc but overall a lot good information in that article and many things a lot of posters have been noticing here for years. I will say Luck hasn't had it easy starting out...the issues with our OL have been numerous and switching cordinators in the second year probably didn't help either but if we can get him a stable line I think the kid has tons of potential.

[BOTT]

I can't take Barnwell seriously after listening to his podcast....I think his brain lacks logic.

[masterlock]

Trading for a horrible rb, then attempting to pound the ball until the team is down by multiple tds is kinda putting an obstacle in front of Luck and the team.

Don't get me started on starting DHB over TY. The FBI should be checking their bank accounts. Maybe their gamblers or something

 Agree. Foolish decisions. Not learning from past and ongoing failures, stuff like that.

[ruksak]

Completely ignored in this article is the fact that since Luck showed up, this has been a very young team with little national expectations. 

 

Now, if this had been an experienced team with high expectations, then his assessment would be more or less correct. However, 2014 is the first time we'll see Luck on a team with higher expectations and experience. 

 

The issue with pieces like this is that there is nobody responding directly to the person saying these things. I would be genuinely interested in how he would respond to what I've said, or how he would attempt to wiggle his way out of the facts I've presented. When a young team with little to no expectations consistently "comes back" (often against NFL elites), that is NOT a sign of trouble ahead. 

[masterlock]

I'm a math guy, I understand what he's trying to say. What he fails to address is that each game has different circumstances, therefore the trend to the norm cannot necessarily be expected.

So the amount of close games won in the future has nothing to do with the number of close games won in the past. Plus he uses subjective assessments like fact.

If you flip a coin, the chances of it coming up heads is 50-50. If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 90% of the time, the next time you flip the coin the chances are still 50-50. And every time after that.

 

I'm not sure how useful the coin flipping analogy is when you're talking about organizations, since some people are better than others at making decisions, and some people are just flat-out more talented. The Patriots and Colts, for example, just made better personnel decisions over the past decade or so, and employed more talented people, who performed better. Hence the above average winning percentages over that time.

[swankdizzle]

Why do the author and some of the commentatiors not draw the obvious conclusion?  Luck wins the close ones because he is a great quarterback. Look at Brady's numbers.  Is the conclusion that he must necessarily start losing the close games because the statistical norm is 50%?  It is what makes him Tom Brady.  My prediction is that Luck will continue to win an abnormal amount of close games throughout his career.  Why?  Hint:  it isn't the statistical norms.

[Loneranger]

Trent Richardson isn't horrible, he just had a hard time adjusting to a new team, city, system, and terminology in the middle of an NFL season. He'll have a much better year this year, you shouldn't give up on him so fast.

No, he isn't horrible but he is way below average. TR is not a starting NFL running back in my opinion.

[Smonroe]

I'm not sure how useful the coin flipping analogy is when you're talking about organizations, since some people are better than others at making decisions, and some people are just flat-out more talented. The Patriots and Colts, for example, just made better personnel decisions over the past decade or so, and employed more talented people, who performed better. Hence the above average winning percentages over that time.

You're missing my point. I guess I wasn't clear. Each game is different. Just because you're winning a bunch of close games does not mean you'll lose future games to regress to the mean.

Coin flip is a perfect example of that. It makes no difference which team you're talking about.

[Malakai432]

No, he isn't horrible but he is way below average. TR is not a starting NFL running back in my opinion.

Wouldn't way below average be considered horrible in most cases???

[NewColtsFan]

Trading for a horrible rb, then attempting to pound the ball until the team is down by multiple tds is kinda putting an obstacle in front of Luck and the team.

Don't get me started on starting DHB over TY. The FBI should be checking their bank accounts. Maybe their gamblers or something

 

I'm not sure why all this is so hard to figure out,  but apparently,  it still is....    so, I'll try to deal with it yet again....

 

Richardson wasn't horrible when we traded for him.   He's not horrible now.   What he is is mostly a victim of circumstance which is primarily a horrible interior offensive line.

 

We pound the ball repeatedly to try and be successful with the running game.   We try to establish the running game to take pressure off the passing game.     If we DON'T try to run the ball,  then all we've done is make ourselves one dimensional which is the worst possible thing an offense can do to itself.    Much easier to defend a one dimensional offense than it is a two dimensional offense.

 

The thing about starting DHB over TYH is another nonsensical bit of outrage.   Starting simply means playing the first play of the game.     A guy could start all 16 games and never play another down in any game and be credited with 16 starts.   TYH didn't lose anything but not starting the first play in 6 of the 16 games.    The kid caught 82 passes for more than 1,000 yards.    He got his.    DHB didn't factor in here.    This is misplaced anger.

 

The Colts were 2-14 three years ago.    We've had double-digit winning seasons since Luck arrived.    One player can't do it all.    So Grigson and Pagano must be doing something right.     Fan frustration in light of such success is misplaced....   I'm not sure what more could reasonably be expected......?

[Jim H.]

Blah blah blah.  The writer needs to find something productive to do with his time.  Parking lot attendant comes to mind.

[LockeDown]

Numbers do lie if you dont take onto account all of the

Variables. Luck possesses most of the best attributes a QB can have. Luck truly is special which the article admits is a possibility.

[OffensivelyPC]

I can't take Barnwell seriously after listening to his podcast....I think his brain lacks logic.

Yeah, in this article, he went A, B, C, 2, 3, E F....

 

Not my favorite article

[BlueShoe]

I think this reflects how good Luck really is. We've skipped a few years in the rebuilding process and in turn now rely on under the radar free agents rather than our position in the Draft. A double edged sword of sorts.

 

Bingo. We have a winner over here folks. Game over.

 

;)

[crazycolt1]

Numbers and stats mean very little. You can skew all the numbers to say anything you feel like. The only true numbers that mean anything is wins and losses. I think when fans or media start bringing in numbers and stats they are just filling time to make them seem smarter. If your QB throws for 400 yards and 4 TDs and your team don't put up a win then all that says is your defense sucks. Numbers are not in the equation.

[Superman]

You're missing my point. I guess I wasn't clear. Each game is different. Just because you're winning a bunch of close games does not mean you'll lose future games to regress to the mean.

Coin flip is a perfect example of that. It makes no difference which team you're talking about.

 

Isn't it a ridiculous premise to begin with? There's simply no way to predict how a team will perform in close games in the future. Barnwell used the Colts 9-1 record in close games in 2012 as his basis for predicting the team's demise in 2013 -- since no team can repeat that kind of performance in close games, the Colts will necessarily be worse in 2013. He was wrong. 

 

The reason is that he fails to acknowledge that good teams don't have 10 one-score games per season. The Colts had so many close games in 2012 because they had a flawed roster. As some aspects of the roster improved in 2013, we had fewer one-score games, almost cutting the percentage of completion in half, and blowing his "regression to the mean" theory out of the water. (As an example, the 2013 Broncos had only 6 one-score games, going 3-3. The Pats had 11 one-score games, going 7-4. The Broncos had a better record and were a better team in 2013, which is part of the reason they had just about half as many one-score games.)

 

As the Colts continue to grow, the difference won't necessarily be in win-loss record. It will be in performance from game to game. Just like the team was able to win games more decisively in 2013, we should able to carry that level of performance over, putting inferior teams away rather than having to finish them off late in the 4th quarter. And we should also be able to avoid some of the blowouts (Rams, Cardinals) or near blowouts/flat performances (Chargers, Bengals). It's hard to win more than 11 games, but adding an extra win or two isn't out of the question. However, just as we said last year, the improvement will be in the quality of the product, not necessarily the record.

 

What this is is a continual effort by Barnwell and others to undermine what the Colts have done. Two years ago, everyone wrote the Colts off, because the roster was in shambles, the GM and coach were rookies, the QB was a rookie, and generally speaking, teams in that situation don't make the playoffs. Historically, when you gut your roster and completely rebuild your front office and coaching staff, you linger in mediocrity (or worse) for a couple seasons, at least. You don't go from 2-14 to 11-5 overnight. The Colts have been over-achieving in many respects over the last two seasons, and are a historical outlier. That drives analytics guys crazy, but sports doesn't always fit in a tidy little box. It's often unpredictable, and that's really why we love it.

 

But some of these guys would like to just chalk this up to "Luck is so awesome that it doesn't matter if the rest of the team and the coaches and the GM suck, he's able to do it on his own." That's just dumb. This roster has come a long way in a short time, everyone is learning as they go along, and they're all doing a really good job, considering the near universal expectations from two years ago. Mistakes have been made, and the roster isn't complete, and we still have work to do. But I really wish people would stop accepting this nonsense as fact, and then parroting it as if it's infallible. 

[BlueShoe]

Isn't it a ridiculous premise to begin with? There's simply no way to predict how a team will perform in close games in the future. Barnwell used the Colts 9-1 record in close games in 2012 as his basis for predicting the team's demise in 2013 -- since no team can repeat that kind of performance in close games, the Colts will necessarily be worse in 2013. He was wrong. 

 

The reason is that he fails to acknowledge that good teams don't have 10 one-score games per season. The Colts had so many close games in 2012 because they had a flawed roster. As some aspects of the roster improved in 2013, we had fewer one-score games, almost cutting the percentage of completion in half, and blowing his "regression to the mean" theory out of the water. (As an example, the 2013 Broncos had only 6 one-score games, going 3-3. The Pats had 11 one-score games, going 7-4. The Broncos had a better record and were a better team in 2013, which is part of the reason they had just about half as many one-score games.)

 

As the Colts continue to grow, the difference won't necessarily be in win-loss record. It will be in performance from game to game. Just like the team was able to win games more decisively in 2013, we should able to carry that level of performance over, putting inferior teams away rather than having to finish them off late in the 4th quarter. And we should also be able to avoid some of the blowouts (Rams, Cardinals) or near blowouts/flat performances (Chargers, Bengals). It's hard to win more than 11 games, but adding an extra win or two isn't out of the question. However, just as we said last year, the improvement will be in the quality of the product, not necessarily the record.

 

What this is is a continual effort by Barnwell and others to undermine what the Colts have done. Two years ago, everyone wrote the Colts off, because the roster was in shambles, the GM and coach were rookies, the QB was a rookie, and generally speaking, teams in that situation don't make the playoffs. Historically, when you gut your roster and completely rebuild your front office and coaching staff, you linger in mediocrity (or worse) for a couple seasons, at least. You don't go from 2-14 to 11-5 overnight. The Colts have been over-achieving in many respects over the last two seasons, and are a historical outlier. That drives analytics guys crazy, but sports doesn't always fit in a tidy little box. It's often unpredictable, and that's really why we love it.

 

But some of these guys would like to just chalk this up to "Luck is so awesome that it doesn't matter if the rest of the team and the coaches and the GM suck, he's able to do it on his own." That's just dumb. This roster has come a long way in a short time, everyone is learning as they go along, and they're all doing a really good job, considering the near universal expectations from two years ago. Mistakes have been made, and the roster isn't complete, and we still have work to do. But I really wish people would stop accepting this nonsense as fact, and then parroting it as if it's infallible. 

 

Talking heads do not like to be wrong, and even very smart people are good at justifying things they came to understand for non-smart reasons. 

 

Andrew Luck was a HUGE reason why the Colts turned things around so quickly. There were other factors too, such as; an easy schedule due to a weaker division, the impact of Bruce Arians on a young quarterback, REGGIE Freaking Wayne, one of the best drafts in NFL history (Colts 2012 draft will go down in history as one of the greatest), a left tackle already in place (Peyton had the same advantage with Glenn), Robert Freaking Mathis, a battle cry for the coach, and something that teams cannot buy - team character, the will to succeed, and determination!

 

You cannot put that into a database and understand it. 

 

Sometimes teams just have it. Andrew Luck has "it". Chuck Pagano has "it". Bruce Arians has "it". 

 

The current Colts have special traits that are unable to be measured. They have weaknesses too, but those seem to be disappearing every year. 

[NewColtsFan]

Isn't it a ridiculous premise to begin with? There's simply no way to predict how a team will perform in close games in the future. Barnwell used the Colts 9-1 record in close games in 2012 as his basis for predicting the team's demise in 2013 -- since no team can repeat that kind of performance in close games, the Colts will necessarily be worse in 2013. He was wrong. 

 

The reason is that he fails to acknowledge that good teams don't have 10 one-score games per season. The Colts had so many close games in 2012 because they had a flawed roster. As some aspects of the roster improved in 2013, we had fewer one-score games, almost cutting the percentage of completion in half, and blowing his "regression to the mean" theory out of the water. (As an example, the 2013 Broncos had only 6 one-score games, going 3-3. The Pats had 11 one-score games, going 7-4. The Broncos had a better record and were a better team in 2013, which is part of the reason they had just about half as many one-score games.)

 

As the Colts continue to grow, the difference won't necessarily be in win-loss record. It will be in performance from game to game. Just like the team was able to win games more decisively in 2013, we should able to carry that level of performance over, putting inferior teams away rather than having to finish them off late in the 4th quarter. And we should also be able to avoid some of the blowouts (Rams, Cardinals) or near blowouts/flat performances (Chargers, Bengals). It's hard to win more than 11 games, but adding an extra win or two isn't out of the question. However, just as we said last year, the improvement will be in the quality of the product, not necessarily the record.

 

What this is is a continual effort by Barnwell and others to undermine what the Colts have done. Two years ago, everyone wrote the Colts off, because the roster was in shambles, the GM and coach were rookies, the QB was a rookie, and generally speaking, teams in that situation don't make the playoffs. Historically, when you gut your roster and completely rebuild your front office and coaching staff, you linger in mediocrity (or worse) for a couple seasons, at least. You don't go from 2-14 to 11-5 overnight. The Colts have been over-achieving in many respects over the last two seasons, and are a historical outlier. That drives analytics guys crazy, but sports doesn't always fit in a tidy little box. It's often unpredictable, and that's really why we love it.

 

But some of these guys would like to just chalk this up to "Luck is so awesome that it doesn't matter if the rest of the team and the coaches and the GM suck, he's able to do it on his own." That's just dumb. This roster has come a long way in a short time, everyone is learning as they go along, and they're all doing a really good job, considering the near universal expectations from two years ago. Mistakes have been made, and the roster isn't complete, and we still have work to do. But I really wish people would stop accepting this nonsense as fact, and then parroting it as if it's infallible. 

 

The above.... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

On my best days I don't write that good,  and I write for a living!

 

That's a really good post.    I hope lots of Colts fan read it.    And then read it again....

 

I'm confident we'll have another good year...   10+ wins for a third straight year.    Beyond that, I have no idea,  but as a fan,  I'll take my chances with this team!         

[ColtsBTM12]

No, he isn't horrible but he is way below average. TR is not a starting NFL running back in my opinion.

It was one year. He had a very good rookie year with Cleveland and he was drafted 3rd overall in 2012 for a reason. Anybody would have struggled getting thrown into a completely different situation with a new team, system and terminology in the middle of the year like he did, plus he was running behind a very unstable offensive line. Give him this year before you just give up on him.

[Warhorse]

As the Colts continue to grow, the difference won't necessarily be in win-loss record. It will be in performance from game to game. Just like the team was able to win games more decisively in 2013, we should able to carry that level of performance over, putting inferior teams away rather than having to finish them off late in the 4th quarter. And we should also be able to avoid some of the blowouts (Rams, Cardinals) or near blowouts/flat performances (Chargers, Bengals). It's hard to win more than 11 games, but adding an extra win or two isn't out of the question. However, just as we said last year, the improvement will be in the quality of the product, not necessarily the record.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................ Historically, when you gut your roster and completely rebuild your front office and coaching staff, you linger in mediocrity (or worse) for a couple seasons, at least. You don't go from 2-14 to 11-5 overnight. The Colts have been over-achieving in many respects over the last two seasons, and are a historical outlier. That drives analytics guys crazy, but sports doesn't always fit in a tidy little box. It's often unpredictable, and that's really why we love it.

Read this folks......there is a great deal of truth here. Leave your emotion at the door.

[weslo1812]

Isn't it a ridiculous premise to begin with? There's simply no way to predict how a team will perform in close games in the future. Barnwell used the Colts 9-1 record in close games in 2012 as his basis for predicting the team's demise in 2013 -- since no team can repeat that kind of performance in close games, the Colts will necessarily be worse in 2013. He was wrong.

The reason is that he fails to acknowledge that good teams don't have 10 one-score games per season. The Colts had so many close games in 2012 because they had a flawed roster. As some aspects of the roster improved in 2013, we had fewer one-score games, almost cutting the percentage of completion in half, and blowing his "regression to the mean" theory out of the water. (As an example, the 2013 Broncos had only 6 one-score games, going 3-3. The Pats had 11 one-score games, going 7-4. The Broncos had a better record and were a better team in 2013, which is part of the reason they had just about half as many one-score games.)

As the Colts continue to grow, the difference won't necessarily be in win-loss record. It will be in performance from game to game. Just like the team was able to win games more decisively in 2013, we should able to carry that level of performance over, putting inferior teams away rather than having to finish them off late in the 4th quarter. And we should also be able to avoid some of the blowouts (Rams, Cardinals) or near blowouts/flat performances (Chargers, Bengals). It's hard to win more than 11 games, but adding an extra win or two isn't out of the question. However, just as we said last year, the improvement will be in the quality of the product, not necessarily the record.

What this is is a continual effort by Barnwell and others to undermine what the Colts have done. Two years ago, everyone wrote the Colts off, because the roster was in shambles, the GM and coach were rookies, the QB was a rookie, and generally speaking, teams in that situation don't make the playoffs. Historically, when you gut your roster and completely rebuild your front office and coaching staff, you linger in mediocrity (or worse) for a couple seasons, at least. You don't go from 2-14 to 11-5 overnight. The Colts have been over-achieving in many respects over the last two seasons, and are a historical outlier. That drives analytics guys crazy, but sports doesn't always fit in a tidy little box. It's often unpredictable, and that's really why we love it.

But some of these guys would like to just chalk this up to "Luck is so awesome that it doesn't matter if the rest of the team and the coaches and the GM suck, he's able to do it on his own." That's just dumb. This roster has come a long way in a short time, everyone is learning as they go along, and they're all doing a really good job, considering the near universal expectations from two years ago. Mistakes have been made, and the roster isn't complete, and we still have work to do. But I really wish people would stop accepting this nonsense as fact, and then parroting it as if it's infallible.

Well said Superman as always! I always enjoy your insight and knowledge and perspective on things because it seems to make sense and is reasonable.

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

I'm not sure why all this is so hard to figure out, but apparently, it still is.... so, I'll try to deal with it yet again....

Richardson wasn't horrible when we traded for him. He's not horrible now. What he is is mostly a victim of circumstance which is primarily a horrible interior offensive line.

We pound the ball repeatedly to try and be successful with the running game. We try to establish the running game to take pressure off the passing game. If we DON'T try to run the ball, then all we've done is make ourselves one dimensional which is the worst possible thing an offense can do to itself. Much easier to defend a one dimensional offense than it is a two dimensional offense.

The thing about starting DHB over TYH is another nonsensical bit of outrage. Starting simply means playing the first play of the game. A guy could start all 16 games and never play another down in any game and be credited with 16 starts. TYH didn't lose anything but not starting the first play in 6 of the 16 games. The kid caught 82 passes for more than 1,000 yards. He got his. DHB didn't factor in here. This is misplaced anger.

The Colts were 2-14 three years ago. We've had double-digit winning seasons since Luck arrived. One player can't do it all. So Grigson and Pagano must be doing something right. Fan frustration in light of such success is misplaced.... I'm not sure what more could reasonably be expected......?

You honestly could've saved your energy on all of that. Teams trade away their top 5 pick 1 yr into their career all the time. And great runningbacks always avg under 4ypc. How could I not realize Trent was a beast.

And it does matter who starts. Personnel was a factor in the many slow starts imo

[CroatianColtsFan21]

I enjoyed reading this article, it wasn't written as a deep analysis of the front office's moves, just a few jabs to make things interesting , but an atempt to explore luck's statistics in close games, by manipulating certain probability and statistic variables..

Exploring the past made it even more interesting.. the conclusion at the end was vague, calling for wait and see aproach..

Looking forward to new articles on luck..

[OldSchoolColt]

Worst article I have read on Colts in a long time, and there has been some bad ones.

[lollygagger8]

Last line of article: 

 

Luck simply can’t expect to win more than 85 percent of his close contests as the years go on. His team may feel that pinch as early as this season.

 

 

 

Speaking of pinch......I'd like to pinch one off on this article. 

[chad72]

I don't want a repeat of the Peyton era where all is placed on the QB. Sooner or later, it will be deja vu and we will be scratching our heads again.

[BpG]

I don't want a repeat of the Peyton era where all is placed on the QB. Sooner or later, it will be deja vu and we will be scratching our heads again.

 

 

Sooner or later? From where I'm sitting you're already there and have been there since Luck got to Indy. In my estimation, Luck has been an MVP candidate in each of his first two seasons. Sorry brother, you're already there. In fact I think some of the Peyton teams were better than your current roster. 

[Jason_]

Sooner or later? From where I'm sitting you're already there and have been there since Luck got to Indy. In my estimation, Luck has been an MVP candidate in each of his first two seasons. Sorry brother, you're already there. In fact I think some of the Peyton teams were better than your current roster. 

 

Let's revisit that at the end of the year, because I don't think that's even close to being true.

[chad72]

Sooner or later? From where I'm sitting you're already there and have been there since Luck got to Indy. In my estimation, Luck has been an MVP candidate in each of his first two seasons. Sorry brother, you're already there. In fact I think some of the Peyton teams were better than your current roster. 

 

We may be already there with dependency on QB but we are slightly ahead of schedule w.r.t the Peyton era and adding pieces in a better fashion, IMO. I understand it is a what have you done for me lately league but we have to keep it in perspective.

 

We managed to lose several guys on O and D before the 2012 season, and manage to beat a $40 mil. dead cap with a playoff appearance. People expected no playoffs, and we got to the playoffs. Last year people expected playoffs, we got a division title and a playoff win. This year, people expect 1 playoff win, I think we will get 2 playoff wins. Inching slowly but surely. This team belies expectations constantly, proving people wrong.

 

Stability wise and roster wise - 2nd year of Pep Hamilton and his offense, 3rd year of Manusky and his defense, this is the year I feel the Colts AT LEAST get to the AFCCG. What happens from there, time will tell. Knocking on wood as I type for the injury front to be a bit more forgiving to us this year

[Superman]

Sooner or later? From where I'm sitting you're already there and have been there since Luck got to Indy. In my estimation, Luck has been an MVP candidate in each of his first two seasons. Sorry brother, you're already there. In fact I think some of the Peyton teams were better than your current roster. 

 

The team went from 2-14 with no QB to 11-5 with Luck. No one expected the Colts to be anywhere near the playoffs in Luck's first two years. The roster is still being rebuilt. Exceeding expectations in the meantime is a good thing.